Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Sorry not all of us are in that boat, I found some of the comments made equally objectionable. Ok I travel a lot and have a job that takes me to a lot of places around the world and perhaps that gives me a different perspective but I think not! I think those in the UK who don't agree with some of the comments made simply ignore them and do what I have done and left the thread as it took a direction which wasn't aiki and therefore of no interest.

On everything else George I am in 100% agreement and if My job evertakes me to the Seattle area I would love to drop in and take away some more of that vast knowledge you willingly share! Thats of course if you will let me!

Completely agree too! I'm from the UK, but didn't grow up here... The guy is nothing but a troll, sadly I took the bait. Not the first time, won't be the last time. Hopefully he's gone for a good while.

Thank you all for your input! It's wonderful to hear so many diverse points of view. I should have put in my previous comment that this shouldn't have been taken to heart.

Hi Daniel,

I am not sure that's a reasonable expectation to have, in Aikiweb, any electronic format, or in face-to-face communications either, for that matter. When you know someone well and they know you well, you might be able to say something negative about their character and then tack on a "Just kidding!" and it will all be laughed off IF they know well and IF your "just kidding" is credible (it won't be if they know you well enough to know that you really meant it and are just trying to dodge the consequences of having said it). It definitely doesn't work when you're talking to strangers or slight acquaintances. That's reality, and it's not a new reality either -- it's always been this way. The internet gives us the ability to presume on short acquaintance in a much more far-reaching way, but it really doesn't make the behavior any more well-received.

There was actually a sentence before the "taken to heart". I can't remember it now but I deleted it and forgot to adjust that sentence. It's not a "just kidding" comment. I was going for an apology - but seeing as how it was misinterpreted I have to correct that mistake. Bluntly put - Sorry. And let that be the end of that.

Henry,
Whats the problem ?Tony is a character, keeps the forum from becoming boring.Whatever happened to the principle of freedom of speech?No matter what you write somebody , somewhere will take offense. You cannot please everybody all the time. Tony come back soon , all is [hopefully ] forgiven. Cheers, Joe.

Joe

Daniel places a message of thanks to Tony for some sound advice that Tony offered him, It is gratifying when anyones efforts are appreciated. I am totally amazed at the extent of the wolf pack mentality that followed his initial post. I don't condone everything that Tony had to say, It did not offend me either.
If I don't approve of a thread or its poster, I simply ignore them both.
I certainly would not slag someone when they are down.

I receive many good and interesting emails from around the world, to which I always reply...on the other hand I also get hate mail, just in the last week I have received two. I received one which stated
" I hope you catch Dick Cancer " ...............To be honest Joe, I don't know Dick Cancer, If anyone knows Dick ? please tell him I am not even looking for him......

These messages are from gutless cowards who in my 55 yrs of Martial Arts not one of them has ever confronted me. I know they never will, for that reason I don't give a pony or try to trace there origins......

The sole decision to ban someone rests with Jun. Are you actually calling Jun an Aikibunny?

This website and forum was created by and is maintained by Jun. Jun has spelled out what he considers to be fair guidelines with which we may participate on this forum. Our participation on this forum and website has explicit and implicit obligations as to rules that we must follow. This is no different than how any other "institution" works.

I think that there does need to be a dialogue amongst the members with Jun as to how to address certain inflammatory issues that ended up getting people put in the "time-out room." I think that you trying to single out "Aikibunnies" with no humor as the reason for people being banned is significantly distorted reasoning at best. The issue that Jun frequently uses as a reason for issuing a "time-out" is the disrespectful manner in which people treat others. Couching one's contempt, dislike,.... in humor is little more than a passive-aggressive act. We all are guilty of this to some degree or another (kind of like your Aikibunny comment).

Encouraging a dialogue with Jun and the other members of the forum on how to tackle areas of dispute and disagreement is a more constructive direction that you might want to consider.

Just my 2 cents.

marc abrams

Marc,
Remember the phrase many a true word spoken in jest?By the way what is a passive -aggressive act? Jun -an Aikibunny? If anyone felt he was /wasnt I would expect them to say so. Were you trying to elicit a response by asking that question?
Joe.

Frankly, I'm sorry this discussion has taken place in his enforced absence, as it feels more than a bit unfair.

I might be mistaken in this thinking, but I don't get the impression Tony is the type to be bothered by others talking about him openly in this way. He strikes me as having some very thick skin. For that reason I have no problem discussing this stuff.
Also, he speaks his mind and I believe that invites others to do the same...as it fits within the standards of Aikiweb, of course.
I think this is an important topic because I think it typifies some common issues we deal with here on Aikiweb. Hopefully it will cause folks to practice some metacognitive evaluation for how they want to interact with folks in the future.
I'm happy to see this thread in the feedback section. The more we're all on the same page, the better...Of course that assumes people will adjust their behavior accordingly.

Quote:

Henry wrote:

I am totally amazed at the extent of the wolf pack mentality that followed his initial post.

I might be mistaken in this thinking, but I don't get the impression Tony is the type to be bothered by others talking about him openly in this way. He strikes me as having some very thick skin. For that reason I have no problem discussing this stuff.

Hi Matt,

I understand your perspective.

For me, though, its not about whether Tony would have -- or express -- hurt feelings. For me, its about my own standards more than someone else's -- hypothetical -- reaction.

It seems inherently unfair to have a thread with "feedback," much of it negative, about someone who's not able to say anything for themselves.

If that doesn't bother Tony -- ok. If it does, well, you're right I think, that he's plenty tough enough to handle it.

Either way, it still bothers me.

A thread like this could have been started by anyone -- myself included -- who has been bothered by some of the things people are mentioning. It didn't require Tony to get banned first, or for someone to coincidentally start a thread with his name attached to it, or to even be specifically directed at him.

A thread like this could have been started by anyone -- myself included -- who has been bothered by some of the things people are mentioning. It didn't require Tony to get banned first, or for someone to coincidentally start a thread with his name attached to it, or to even be specifically directed at him.

Well, if Jun is an AikiBunny, I wanna be one too! I got to train with him several years ago at the Aiki Expo and he throws hard and fast and he ain't giving you a thing unless you can't figure out the technique and then he's patient and generous with his help.

Hi David,
Thank you for the response. Normally I'd be inclined to feel the same way.
In the sense that he can't be here right now to reply directly, I agree it's not fair. I'm guessing Jun moved the thread here because the way the topic shifted toward the issue of banning people for how they carry themselves. People also spoke up on behalf of Jun's action. They did so by supporting Jun and/or by putting down Tony's behavior. While there seems to be some trends in thought, I think it's clear we as a group disagree on the nature of the behavior as well as the response. It became topical and I guess it's very easy to offer comments on folks who are so free with their own...I suspect a certain degree of catharsis involved too.
I like Tony. I hope he'll keep posting...and I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds by commenting as freely as I suspect he would.
Sincerely,
Matt

My 2 cents leads me to believe that Jun placed this thread here because he was gently trying to get us to give feedback to one another in regards to the difficult communication area of disagreements.

Without face-to-face interactions, assessing intention, humor, anger, etc, becomes very difficult at best. We get put in the time out room by Jun for direct expressions of negativity in regards to disagreements. People then tend to stray toward being passive-aggressive so that the "punch" can be slipped in with seemingly "within-the-bounds" comments. Neither of these approaches seem to be particularly useful to threads in the long-term. Jun certainly has better things to do than to be our internet policeman. What would people recommend as civil guidelines so that we can agree to disagree without being personally insulting?

What would people recommend as civil guidelines so that we can agree to disagree without being personally insulting?

Engage brain before hitting send.
Seriously.
I work at my tone as well as my words - that's sort of what I mean when I say that here online THAT is the training.

The more I am irritated by a post or the more strong my opinion is on something, the more I take the time to re-read my post and edit before posting. My goals when doing this are:
remove ad hominen references, trying to focus on the post and not the poster;
reconsider anything I've written that may be based on imputing motives to the poster, since I firmly believe that even IRL ascribing motives is difficult and here on the net it can be impossible - instead I try to address the actual words/content;
chose neutral language to decrease the chances another person will ascribe motives or issues to me that I do not intend to present;
try to state my understanding of the facts or explain my opinion as clearly and simply as possible;
decide if a given issue is worth speaking up on or if it is just beating a dead horse.

I want to make it clear I am not demonizing any individuals. I have at times over the years on aikiweb tried to point out how certain patterns of communication have the effect of chilling conversation or just ending conversation. Whether a given person is doing it on purpose to that end or it just happens to be a byproduct of someone having a different attitude toward netiquette than I have is an area I wouldn't venture into since that would be ascribing motives.

He does not need long winded posts to express his thoughts and opinions and does not hide behind pseudo spirituality.

His Aikido is based on training and his use of that training in real life.

He walks his talk no apologies and in my opinion is closer to O'sensei's walk than his detractors.

dps

Hi David,
I liked the bit above about Tony not hiding behind pseudo spirituality.
He states his opinions [good or bad] in an honest manner.Personally I find such candour refreshing .Makes a change from some of the spiritual /philosophical /theoretical/Gene Kelly style Aikido blogs usually posted here.Cheers, Joe

My 2 cents leads me to believe that Jun placed this thread here because he was gently trying to get us to give feedback to one another in regards to the difficult communication area of disagreements.

Without face-to-face interactions, assessing intention, humor, anger, etc, becomes very difficult at best. We get put in the time out room by Jun for direct expressions of negativity in regards to disagreements. People then tend to stray toward being passive-aggressive so that the "punch" can be slipped in with seemingly "within-the-bounds" comments. Neither of these approaches seem to be particularly useful to threads in the long-term. Jun certainly has better things to do than to be our internet policeman. What would people recommend as civil guidelines so that we can agree to disagree without being personally insulting?

Marc Abrams

I think you may have said it in your question: "agree to disagree without being personally insulting."
R-e-s-p-e-c-t.
I think the civil guidelines seem fairly well-defined: Don't be insulting. I think this means people with a more ascerbic sense of humor will probably have to curb that humor to some degree. The question is to what degree; where is the line drawn? Is it possible to pin one down or is it always going to be a fuzzy line? I think it will always be a fuzzy line...a tough one to regulate online, too, but I think the responses to this thread give some good indicators.
Coincidentally, I still come here to practice reading and writing about "Aikido and things" largely because it IS so well maintained and, almost without exception, the people so friendly.
Take care,
Matt

Once upon a time there was a man named John S. During his tenure as president of a large university, he accomplished many goals, bringing his university into greater prominence and helping to secure its financial future. He also displayed a marked tendency towards high-handed, autocratic behavior, even on trivial matters on which a few material concessions would have done him no harm, let alone a concession towards civility.

After some years in this position, he decided to run for governor of his state. He had no prior experience in politics, which is considered no great barrier these days as long as you have enough money, but in those days it was considered de rigeur to pay at least a few token dues before aspiring to high office...so, eyebrows were raised. They were further raised as the general public got a real taste of what Mr. S. had been dishing out to members of the university community for some years. He had a tendency to let fly with whatever he felt like saying, and many people's reaction was to say, "This guy is a total jackass."

Then came the apologists -- the "refreshing candor" enthusiasts. I like the guy, they said. He speaks his mind. He speaks the truth as he says it, unpadded and unvarnished. And that's a good thing! This guy is honest, and I like that! Yay honesty!

At the point where it seemed like the refreshing candor crowd might prevail, a newspaper columnist pointed out the obvious. Sure, he's honest, she said. So is my four-year-old. Just like Mr. S., my four-year-old is apt to let fly with whatever she's thinking. It's unpadded and unvarnished, and it's also unconsidered. It's not thought out. And, because she's a four-year-old, I know it for what it is. When my four-year-old screeches out her opinion of my parenting style, I don't beam and say, "Oh, that's just great! What refreshing candor!" Instead, I buckle down and work to teach this child some tact.

Candor and sincerity lose their virtue when they're used as a bludgeon in the service of incivility. Four-year-olds are expected to be lacking in self-restraint. Adults must do better.